[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / lisperer / mde / rwby / tingles / vg / vietnam / xivlg ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 29653753be4e52f⋯.jpeg (231.44 KB, 947x729, 947:729, 61C9D826-F360-4A0B-8274-E….jpeg)


>tfw you finally start to read Capital

How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?

<b-b-but I watch Unruhe and Finnbol for my theory!!!1!


File: 4bd4df3cb54cdbc⋯.jpg (40.78 KB, 946x656, 473:328, 6820a2076b6fa7d0a0b91c75f9….jpg)




>be comrade OP

>spend a few months lurking and shitposting

>finally decided to start taking seriously "read a book advice"

>spend hours until he finally manage to find downloadable copy of capital

>never felt so powerful in his life

>barely finishes first page of Capital

>the power of dialectics is already strengthening his body and spirit

>"I guess this is enough for today, I should go to /leftypol/ and laugh at those brainlets haha"


File: 7535d1e51dba2aa⋯.gif (2.9 MB, 500x540, 25:27, 1481814363767.gif)


Imagine calling yourself a Marxist without reading and fully understanding Hegel's "The Science of Logic"


File: 21eecaf14b09f6c⋯.jpeg (56.71 KB, 604x600, 151:150, C6C0B7CE-F4F5-4F2D-824A-B….jpeg)

>mfw I read section one and discover that exchange-value is merely the form of appearance of value, which is human labor measured in duration



File: 625c8d3d5aebf98⋯.png (484.89 KB, 614x1042, 307:521, 1504491897981.png)

>when you read the very first letter of the Communist Manifesto


Capital seems too focus on production, which was fine for the 20th century but feels outdated by now. Capitalism is really, really good at adaptation and now the economy is mostly based on services. Is there any Marxist analysis on service based economy?


File: d237348e40ebb9e⋯.jpeg (234.83 KB, 1095x730, 3:2, D708F504-12E0-4E71-B15A-7….jpeg)


>mfw you can’t speak German but you read the Manifesto in its original language so as to avoid bourgeois distortions



Economy in the first world is based on services because capital is global and the imperial powers just shifted production to where the wages are low. Commodities still need to be created somewhere






>now the economy is mostly based on services.

Commodity production is at its highest point in human-history, capitalists in the imperial core have just chosen to shift most production to the third-world where they can exploit without labor laws and minimum wages. In the void we porky’s labor aristocracy consumer class



Marx’s definition of productive labor is very broad too, so there’s a lot that goes on in the American economy that might not be classified under manufacturing that actually is productive. For instance, fast food isn’t counted as manufacturing or even as industry but it still is a productive job.

The US manufacturing economy in particular is actually very large being capitalized around $4 trillion. I once did some calculations using BLS statistics trying to find out how many people worked in productive industry in a total but conventionally limited sense. I believe I came up with about 20% or so or the workforce involved in it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it edged up to 25%-30% once you include those service jobs that are misclassified such as fry cooks.



that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour, isnt that the definition of commodity. In that sense making burgers is definitely commodity production



that which is given by nature and transformed by human labour into something useful*



What do you suggest is fundamentally inapplicable from Marx's theory then to now?




Yeah, for sure, but the strange thing is bourgeois economists classify it as a service instead of commodity production. I mean even Smith would have classified burger flipping as productive labor.

A lot of Marxists don’t go any deeper than the surface presentation of bourgeois statistics tho. So if they say only 12% of the workforce works in manufacturing they’ll usually parrot that as proof that Marx’s theories need to be fundamentally updated to meet today’s conditions. They typically won’t even bother to add other productive industrial sectors to the equation like building, mining, agriculture etc. despite the material being readily available. They just think productive work=factory for some reason.



making burgers is imperialism



>How can you call yourself a Marxist if you don’t understand his critique of capitalism?

This, I didn't call myself Marxist prior to reading Marx, I just said I was socialist. Now I'm a Marxist, I've read two volumes of Capital and a bunch of other stuff.



>now the economy is mostly based on services

leaving aside what other people said (they're right), transport and comms are a productive act. a number of things classed as "services" are actually production.



Indeed, well then Mr. Well read, would you like to debunk OP's lack of theory here?




>arguing with retards on a RANDOM board

Nah fam


Isn't capital shite? There are numerous authors who have dismantled the entire book



Name a book about political economy that hasn't been "dismantled" by numerous authors.



It's not shite, it's right. The bourgeois hate it because it's a scientific theory of why capitalism is fucked.



marx or engels approved the english translationn of the manifesto iirc



Apparently so many that you couldn't even name one


File: bd2f7e3a945bd6a⋯.png (2.34 KB, 209x66, 19:6, sraffaprice.png)


I have so far yet to see a single bourgeois critique of Capital that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding, and believe me I've looked. It's so flagrant that the only real explanation is that most bourgois economists are either liars, retarded, or both (usually both). The closest critique I have ever found that doesn't rely on outright misunderstanding or misrepresentation is the Sraffian transformation problem, and that one is still retarded when you realise that the main hypothesis in marxian price theory attempts to establish that there is a proportionality between mean embodied labour of a commodity and the mean of the market price over time. As such it is an empirical hypothesis which must be debunked by the data, which bourgeois economists shy away from because they are wrong and don't like to be proven wrong.

Also Sraffa is stupid, because his formulation on competitive price doesn't take into account MOP, making it non-marxian, which means his formulation actually has nothing to do with Marx's price theory. The very thing his formulation was supposed to challenge. Pic related, Sraffa's formulation of competitive price. l is labour, w is wages, r is rate of profit. Notice that lack of MOP taken into account


>when you transcend Capital to realize that the LTV is not actually based on labor but the relationship of labor to the environment and labor's relation to labor



Sraffa was a neo-Ricardian IIRC


>tfw a lecturer who isn't even an economist says the LTV has been empirically been unproven

<tfw someone has managed to empirically disprove the entire fundamental basis of economics



LTV, falling rate of profit, the "transformation problem" have all been proven numerous times or found to not be a "problem". And they have been tackled from different angles (Cock, Kliman, Kržan, Bajt and many others)


File: 2225bb5fbe48d4b⋯.jpg (105.98 KB, 601x601, 1:1, 2225bb5fbe48d4b6c414c050b0….jpg)

>tfw too much of a brainlet to read capital



Is volume '4' of Capital worth reading?



Just watch the movie.



Andrew Kliman, please leave (and learn some math.)


>yfw you realize I read it over twenty years ago, and it's still garbage today.



What do you reccomend?



would be great but no



basic economics by stefan molyneux

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / lisperer / mde / rwby / tingles / vg / vietnam / xivlg ]